Comments for Hyper Inflation at http://18to88.com , comment 1 to 17 out of 17 comments http://18to88.com Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:07:34 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2219 Sorry, there's no way to tell. When I rebuilt the list from last year, I eyeballed out some QBs at the bottom to save me time (if they had more picks than TDs, I didn't figure their rating, because they weren't going to be in the top 10, obviously). It's not apples to apples, but last year's worst ranked QB was at 65. We currently have 6 QBs below that level. - DZ Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:46:39 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2217 But, did you consider the bottom portion of the QB ratings? As you pointed out there is a high number of QBs with inflated raings, but are there also an unusually high number of QBs with a terrible rating? (Russell, Anderson etc.) - Doug England Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:55:53 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2210 As it turned out it wasn't an unreasonable project. I think it only took about 30 minutes or so. It was a good suggestion and added to the piece. There will definitely be some regression as the season goes along. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of abject frauds in this top 10. Paging Kyle Orton? - DZ Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:58:07 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2207 Hey Man, I didn't ask you to do any more work, although I am impressed that you just went ahead and crunched it. I was just trying to make a comment about the work you'd already done. Nice job on the new stuff. This is now the only place on the whole internet where someone can find that data. And I agree, the top ten ratings this year are all higher than they were last year, although it's interesting that if you make the cutoff at 95 (MVP level?) instead of 100, then there were 8 guys above the line after seven weeks last year and there is just one more guy above it this year. Thanks for the sharing the results. It's really interesting. - LukeM Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:31:09 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2204 Passer rating is BS anyway. Brady should have been under 100 against the Bucs with two INTs and Palmer should have been perfect, but was only at 146.7. Jamarcus Russel at 31 is also too high. - Attila Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:23:03 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2203 That's a pretty logical conclusion but I don't htink they're ruining football because their suckitude is not permanent (Lions, Raiders excepted). I look at it like expansion years--when a bunch of QBs get two extra games against an unformed team, league-wide passer ratings probably jump, as will most other stats. Thnk of baseball expansion--there are only so many good arms out there, so hitting usually jumps in those years. But it doesn;t ruin the game, does it? We just happened, for whatever reason, to hit a really bad D stretch. Maybe teams ranked around 20 with one key man last year lost their key man, showing that it was really a house of cards. Coaching changes to blame? Injuries/retirements/trades? Not sure. Weather will take its toll, as you said, (in fact, is it possible that we have had better weather this year? No hurricanes ravaging NO/MIA/TAM/HOU means that what might have been a rain-soaked quagmire game turned out to be a decent passing day for mid-level QBs.... (Weren't there some insane wind & rain-bowls in Miami in recent years? Sheets of water and 40 MPH winds and passing games that looked like 8 of 20 for 65 yards?) We may end up just a shade above the ratings of the recent past. But all is not lost. Manning will likely NOT add 20 pts to his rating like he did last year. Brady will end up higher than Cassell. Last year saw three prominent rookie QBs who did well and are likely to improve. - Bob M Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:46:45 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2202 Done. Refresh the article and take a look. - DZ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:54:03 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2201 I'm remaking last year's rating board after 7 weeks. Give me an hour. If anyone finds it soon, LET ME KNOW! - DZ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:06 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2200 ...but that's what we love about you. You make a great case, and an equally great topic to think about... but my suspicion is that it's only about a third of the way through the season, and as teams get more film on the QBs, their ratings will become more pedestrian. (Except of course for PM's, whose rating will probably go up.) - Doug England Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:12:08 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2199 League wide scoring isn't up: [b]First, NFL scoring. Since the late 1940s, when Harry Truman was president and the tech rumor was that Blaupunkt was designing an FM radio for the dashboard of cars, NFL scoring has hovered between 21 and 22 points per team per game. Last season, the average was 22 points; in 2007, it was 21.7 points; in 1987, it was 21.6 points; in 1967, it was 21.8 points; in 1947, it was 22 points. So far this season, the average is 21.1. (Check any past year here.) The averages are so consistent it's almost spooky, as though there were a "power law" dictating an outcome of 21 to 22 points per team per NFL game. Offensive fads have come and gone: single wing, run and shoot, I backfield, full house, no huddle, double tight, the spread. Tactics change, scoring remains about the same.[/b] The question is this year, if some really bad teams are screwing with the numbers. These teams don't score on offense, and give up a ton of points on defense, so it averages out league wide, but it tilts the numbers of the QBs that are lucky enough to play them. - DZ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:57:27 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2198 Obviously the lousy teams have skewed the numbers quite a bit but what has been frustrating to watch ever since the playoffs when the Pats mugged the Colts receivers (04?) is how much protection receivers now get. It seems now in the league if you breathe on the receivers it is "passing interference." Am I the only who sees this? Maybe it is just me be I feel it greatly weakens the game if you give an inordinate amount of protection for the offense in order to inflate scores and make games more exciting. Which is odd for me because I find defensive battles very fun to watch. - mattie Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:52:03 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2197 I guess you would have to compile the data yourself from every quarterback's stat page on nfl.com or espn.com, then calculate their ratings. I wouldn't blame you for not doing that. I'm certainly not going to. But if you don't, we won't really know that there aren't usually ten or so guys that start out that hot before fading. - LukeM Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:50:49 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2195 I wasn't trying to prove that this year is different. I suspect it is, but don't know where to find those numbers...if anyone does let me know. I was trying to prove that the most of the absurdly high QB ratings were due to the top QBs playing an especially crappy group of teams. - DZ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:34:41 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2194 I don't think you've proven that this year is any different. What did the top ten list look like after week seven last year? The top ten after the whole year is almost always going to be worse than the top ten after a few games. - LukeM Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:26:44 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2192 I'm sure they will regress. Most of their success is built on trashing the worst teams in the game. Some of that will even out, but the point is that when you see the big #s this early it's because the #s are skewed by a few games against awful teams. - DZ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:33:55 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2190 Sample size is 6 or 7 games, depending on the team, with virtually no bad weather games. Most, if not all, of those QBs will regress. - Merr Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:23:22 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/october/hyper-inflation.html#comment-2189 It is amazing how bad these teams have become this year. Just last year, defense dominated the league, with Pittsburgh having an all-time defense, and there were tons of other great ones. I'm sure this will cool down over time, but this year looks like it will challenge 2004 for QB insanity. - dmstorm22 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:22:54 +0100